1970 65438+1On October 30th, two policemen in Lomenster, Massachusetts saw a man named Gra wearing a pair of strange pants. He sewed a star-spangled banner about10cm in width and15cm in length on the left hip of jeans, which is the national flag of the United States of America. The police officer saw him talking to a group of people in the busy section of the city center, but it was obviously not a meeting, and there was nothing to attract people to watch or hinder traffic. When the police officer asked about the national flag on Kugen's trousers, everyone present burst into laughter.
The next day, the two policemen took Grara to court according to Massachusetts law prohibiting "destroying, trampling, defacing and contemptuously abusing the American flag". According to the laws of this country, publicly destroying, trampling, defacing or insulting the national flag, whether public property or private property, will be punished by law, with a fine of 10 yuan to 100 yuan, or imprisonment of less than one year.
The police did not accuse pueraria lobata of "destroying, trampling or defacing the national flag". In fact, Kudzu did not "destroy, trample or defile" the national flag. Police officers accused kudzu of "contemptuously abusing the national flag". Is it "contempt and abuse of the national flag" to sew the national flag on the buttocks of pants?
The trial was held in the High Court of Worcester County, and the jury found Gera guilty. The court sentenced Kudo to six months in prison. Graa appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Criminal Court, and the state Supreme Court upheld the original judgment. As soon as Gegen started serving his sentence, he applied to the federal district court in Massachusetts for a writ of habeas corpus, that is, he asked the federal court to review the judgment of the case. As a result, the federal district court found that according to the principle of due process of the 14 amendment to the Constitution, the clause of "contemptuously abusing the national flag" in Massachusetts law was too vague and the legal provisions were too broad, which violated the provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
These policemen appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court's ruling that Massachusetts law did not provide enough standards and norms, and what kind of behavior was "contemptuously abusing the national flag". The language of state laws does not give enough warning to the public, clear enforcement boundaries for law enforcement personnel, and clear judgment standards for courts and juries. This vague law is untenable and should be abolished.
1974, the case was finally appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. This is the famous case of Smith v. Gogan.
I decisions of the supreme court
The Federal Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pueraria 6-3, and the official lewis powell made the ruling on behalf of the court.
According to the rules, the Supreme Court's ruling first affirmed that the Federal Supreme Court has the judicial power to review and decide cases. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court and the Court of Appeal that state laws were "too vague". Officer Powell pointed out that there is no doubt that the language of the law should not be vague, because this principle is closely related to the "fairness" of the law and the disciplinary significance of the judiciary. The "due process" clause in the amendment to the Constitution 14 requires the legislature to provide clear judgment standards and clear boundaries for law enforcement personnel and the public when legislating to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory judgments by law enforcement personnel. In this case, the expression of "the American flag is treated openly and contemptuously" in Massachusetts law is too vague to provide a clear judicial judgment in this case.
Powell said in his ruling that as early as 1968, the Federal Supreme Court pointed out that "what some people think is contemptuous behavior may be an art to others". He said that in this case, Kudo's practice may not be "art", but it can only be said that it is a naive "clumsy practice", but the comments of the federal district court are correct: the national flag has become a fashion for young people to decorate, and it has become a common phenomenon to use the national flag casually on various occasions. Americans often decorate their hats and T-shirts with national flag patterns. Decorating the national flag on casual clothes may be out of respect and worship for the national flag, or it may just be to attract others' attention. For example, when selling hot dogs or ice cream, a small national flag is often inserted. Massachusetts law doesn't always want to make all these behaviors illegal. However, now a large number of casually decorated national flags, for some more rigid and conservative people, have been suspected of contempt for the national flag. The official pointed out that the law cannot force ordinary people to guess the meaning of the law. The expression "using the national flag openly and contemptuously" is for the public and law enforcement personnel to guess. If it is not "contempt" to decorate a hat with the national flag and not "contempt" to decorate with pants, where is the boundary? The law does not clearly define this line. Such "too vague" laws impose the burden of guessing what is legal and what is illegal on the people, which can only make the people at a loss; At the same time, this law, which lacks judgment standards, allows police, prosecutors and juries to make judgments according to their own value preferences and the likes and dislikes of specific people and specific occasions. This law, which can't guarantee consistency and treat everyone equally, obviously violates the principle of "due process" in the constitutional amendment of 14, so it is unconstitutional.
Official Powell admitted that in some areas of human behavior, it is difficult for the government legislature to make precise legal and illegal provisions in detail. At this time, people, law enforcement officers and courts need to judge according to specific time and occasion. For example, in large gatherings, in order to maintain order at the scene, in addition to the laws and policies formulated in advance, the law enforcement police sometimes have to judge who is allowed to do what and who is not allowed to do what. However, the law of "flouting and abusing the national flag" is not such a special case. The law cannot give the right to judge whether someone "despises the national flag" to law enforcement personnel, but should make clear provisions in advance so that law enforcement personnel can have laws to follow. It is such a common fashion to hold a ceremony with the national flag and decorate it with it. Moreover, fashion has been changing, and there are so many colorful forms that the government can't ban them all at once. This requires the law to clarify what is illegal. If the language of the law cannot make such an explanation, it cannot be used for punishment. Officer Powell declared that the Massachusetts law on "contemptuous abuse of the national flag" was invalid because it was "too vague".
Second, white * * officer's opinion.
Among the officials who voted for the Supreme Court's decision, there was an official named Byron R. White. He agreed with Powell's ruling that the state law of "flouting the national flag" in Massachusetts was unconstitutional and invalid; But he disagreed with the reasons in Powell's ruling. So as an official who agreed to the ruling, he expressed his personal opinion. This personal view is very interesting.
Police officer White said that the Federal Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts laws were unconstitutional because of vague language and lack of clear standards. Although he also thinks that state laws should be declared invalid, he doesn't think it is because it is "too vague". He said that there are a series of behaviors that people can judge self-evidently based on common sense, which is a contemptuous behavior. When it comes to the national flag, it may be clear whether some acts belong to "contemptuous use" prohibited by national laws, and law enforcement officers do not have to guess for the time being. Although national laws may not stipulate whether all acts are "flags of contempt", it does not mean that all acts cannot be tried. In this case, anyone should be able to judge that sewing the national flag on the hip of trousers is a kind of "contempt" for the national flag and belongs to the scope of "contempt and abuse of the national flag" defined by national laws. The Massachusetts Supreme Criminal Court pointed out that "the jury's verdict means that the jury thinks that Kudo's illegal behavior is intentional" when upholding Kudo's guilty verdict. It's hard for Kudo to defend himself. When he did this, he didn't realize that it was prohibited by national laws.
Therefore, White officials believe that the laws of Massachusetts are not "too vague" at this point, and Pueraria also knows it. He quoted the main argument of Pueraria lobata: he sewed a flag patch on the hip of his trousers to express a point. The police think this view is unpatriotic. They think pueraria lobata is trying to show that the United States is a place where people are only rationed to sit under their asses, or even to express more unbearable meaning. In any case, his approach is to express a strong point of view, which is not wrong.
Therefore, White officially pointed out that the laws in Massachusetts are at least unambiguous for pueraria lobata. Even though the national laws may be too vague for others and other occasions, it cannot be ruled that the laws are "too vague" because the principle of judicial self-control requires the Supreme Court to conduct judicial review within the scope of the defendant's behavior. We cannot declare a law "too vague" and invalid just because some marginal behaviors are difficult to judge.
In this way, the official views of White and Powell are quite different. He thinks that state laws are not vague. Then, why does he still think that national laws should be abolished?
He said that the real unavoidable question is whether the clause of "treating the national flag with contempt" in Massachusetts law violates the principle of the First Amendment. The * * in the First Amendment is of course aimed at speech. If an action cannot express any opinions or opinions, it is not within the scope of * *. The Supreme Court pointed out in the case of 1968 "America v. O 'Brien" that although some acts have the function of expressing opinions, they are so-called expressive acts, and the government still has the right to stipulate or prohibit the time, place and manner of expressing opinions.
Officer White believes that there is no doubt that since Congress has the right to decide the pattern of the national flag, it also has the right to legislate to protect the integrity of the national flag. According to the Constitution, Congress has the right to legislate to protect the welfare of the whole people, regulate interstate trade, provide national defense and so on. Of course, it also has the right to protect national sovereignty and the national flag as one of the symbols of sovereignty. The national flag once played a very important role in human affairs. The United States of America has its own national flag, and it can also have corresponding laws to regulate how to use, display and place it, and how to manufacture, imitate, sell, own and destroy it.
It can be seen that Guan Bai is actually one of the officials who advocated the protection of the national flag in the Supreme Court. So, why did he agree to a favorable judgment for Pueraria lobata? White said that according to Massachusetts law, it was not what Grara did to the national flag that convicted him, but that Grara despised the American flag. According to this clause in the state law, kudzu vine was not only convicted of "treating" the national flag, but also of "contempt", which is usually understood as "contempt" for the national flag. According to this article, the conviction of kudzu vine is not only to punish kudzu vine for what he did to the national flag, but also to punish kudzu vine for "expressing" some thoughts that the dominant majority do not want to see.
That is to say, although kudzu vine "did something" to the national flag (sewed a patch on the hip of trousers), the national law will not only punish him for what he did to the national flag, but also punish him for "expressing" the national flag. State laws prohibit not only behavior, but also the expression of ideas here. That's exactly what Officer White can't agree with.
Recalling the Supreme Court's ruling on cases involving the national flag, White pointed out that in the United States, the law cannot force anyone to pay tribute to the national flag and show respect. In addition, the Supreme Court has also established such a rule in its previous ruling: expressing contempt and disrespect for the national flag in oral or written language is not punished by law. Similarly, the act of opposing the national flag should be protected by the First Amendment if it is meaningful to "express" ideas. This is the fault of Massachusetts law. If kudzu vine's behavior does not "express" any thoughts, then it is impossible to "despise the national flag". If kudzu vine's behavior is regarded as "contempt" for the national flag, then this contempt is exactly the "thought" that kudzu vine wants to "express", and this expression must be protected by the principle of * * in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Therefore, Officer White said that he agreed with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that the laws in Massachusetts were unconstitutional and should be declared invalid.